[comp.emacs] Next MicroEmacs version

drk@athena.mit.edu (David R Kohr) (09/06/89)

In article <9993@j.cc.purdue.edu> nwd@j.cc.purdue.edu (Daniel Lawrence) writes:
>In article <1329@syma.sussex.ac.uk> leilabd@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Leila Burrell-Davis) writes:
>>[Problem about using the MicroEmacs ^Q quote mechanism in search strings]
>>Has anyone noticed this - fixed it? (It also occurs in version 3.9e)
>
>	Yes, I fixed this in the development sources about 5 weeks ago.
> It will come out with the new version when it is ready.
>
>			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153
>					  arpa:	dan@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu
>				The Programmer's Room 
>				Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533

Daniel,

	Do you have an estimate of when this new version will be coming
out?  Will it be a major version (3.11) or a minor one (3.10b)?  What
major new features, enhancements, and bug fixes will it contain?  And
what is the current status of MicroScribe?

	I'm a very satisfied MicroEmacs user, and I greatly appreciate
both your efforts and the efforts of everyone else involved in creating
the various versions of MicroEmacs.

	I did make one minor fix to my own copy of MicroEmacs 3.10 for
the IBM PC.  The distributed version seems to use DOS to read the keyboard,
which means that certain particularly well-behaved TSR programs (like
Borland's on-line THELP programming language help utility) will refuse
to come up when UE 3.10 is running.  I got around this problem by
having UE use BIOS (which is re-entrant) instead of DOS (which is not
re-entrant) to read the keyboard. I'd be quite willing to share this
modification with anyone who's interested.

David R. Kohr   M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory    Group 45 ("Radars 'R' Us")
	email:	KOHR@LL.LL.MIT.EDU   or   DRK@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
	phone:	(617)981-0775 (work),   (617)527-3908 (home)

nwd@j.cc.purdue.edu (Daniel Lawrence) (09/06/89)

In article <14078@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> drk@athena.mit.edu (David R Kohr) writes:
>	Do you have an estimate of when this new version will be coming
>out?  Will it be a major version (3.11) or a minor one (3.10b)?  What
>major new features, enhancements, and bug fixes will it contain?  And
>what is the current status of MicroScribe?

	I believe that I will have a minor revision ready to release via
BBS and anon-ftp at the end of September.  It mainly contains a few bug
fixes and some good work on the search commands.

	I am currently occupied writing a portable object oriented
preprocessor for C (no, not C++... it has problems I don't want to deal
with) and when I have this ready, I will both release it, and use it for
another go at MicroSCRIBE (The standard version I had been writting just
got too messy...).

	As to major things for uEMACS, I am looking at folding text and
handling screen attributes char by char instead of line by line (so we
can highlight regions....).  I would not expect this for quite some time
though.  I will continue to post intrim versions until then.

>	I did make one minor fix to my own copy of MicroEmacs 3.10 for
>the IBM PC.

	Send it in!

>David R. Kohr   M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory    Group 45 ("Radars 'R' Us")

			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153
					  arpa:	dan@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu
				The Programmer's Room 
				Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533

dean@coplex.UUCP (Dean Brooks) (09/07/89)

drk@athena.mit.edu (David R Kohr) writes:

>	I did make one minor fix to my own copy of MicroEmacs 3.10 for
>the IBM PC.

  I am a die-hard MicroEmacs user.  Have been for almost 3 years.  It is
definitely the best small-scaled editor ever produced.

  However, I do have one MAJOR complaint that I hope any future versions of
MicroEmacs will fix.  MicroEmacs version 3.10 has TERRIBLE Meta-Key
translating routines that used to be WONDERFUL in version 3.9  We are
running MicroEmacs on UNIX 5.2 and have been for almost 3 years.

  I ended up having to delete the Meta-Key routines from 3.10 and merge
in the ones from 3.9 because it wouldn't correctly accept a Meta-Key
that was equal to an ESCAPE character.  Thus it would get confused
between functions-keys and bound commands.  No function keys or special
keys would work (such as NEXT-PAGE keys, etc.)

  Anyway, the changes I made involved rewriting about 2 ".c" files.

  Dont get me wrong, I LOVE MicroEmacs.  I just hope that this problem
gets resolved in future versions.  It makes it very difficult to run
on character-based terminals (i.e. Wyse-60's, etc.).

--
dean@coplex.UUCP   Dean A. Brooks
                   Copper Electronics, Inc.
                   Louisville, Ky
UUCP: !mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!coplex!dean

nwd@j.cc.purdue.edu (Daniel Lawrence) (09/08/89)

In article <786@coplex.UUCP> dean@coplex.UUCP (Dean Brooks) writes:
>  I am a die-hard MicroEmacs user.  Have been for almost 3 years.  It is
>definitely the best small-scaled editor ever produced.

>  However, I do have one MAJOR complaint that I hope any future versions of
>MicroEmacs will fix.  MicroEmacs version 3.10 has TERRIBLE Meta-Key
>translating routines that used to be WONDERFUL in version 3.9  We are
>running MicroEmacs on UNIX 5.2 and have been for almost 3 years.

>  I ended up having to delete the Meta-Key routines from 3.10 and merge
>in the ones from 3.9 because it wouldn't correctly accept a Meta-Key
>that was equal to an ESCAPE character.  Thus it would get confused
>between functions-keys and bound commands.  No function keys or special
>keys would work (such as NEXT-PAGE keys, etc.)

>  Dont get me wrong, I LOVE MicroEmacs.  I just hope that this problem
>gets resolved in future versions.  It makes it very difficult to run
>on character-based terminals (i.e. Wyse-60's, etc.).

	The routines in version 3.9 produced machine specific code that
made macroes non-portable between MicroEMACS implimentations.  Version's
3.10 effort to standardize these is very neccessary.  The actually
problem you are experiencing is my lack of a UNIX system V nap()
function which is portable, and the fact that I do not have access to a
system V implimentation and all its documentation so that I can attempt
to find another way to do the same thing.

	So once again, if the system V and XENIX fans out there are
unhappy with support for thier machines under XENIX or system V, someone
needs to help me get a system V OS for my development machine. 
Maintaining and distributing MicroEMACS is a finacial disaster on my
part, and has been for four years now.  If the XENIX people out there
band together to get me a XENIX, they would find much better support for
XENIX and system V.

			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153
					  arpa:	dan@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu
				The Programmer's Room 
				Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533